Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroMcAeroFace
I don't think anyone disagrees that perfectly following the template with a true half body of revolution on a plane is incorrect. That is what that drivers pod is, the perfect and correct use of the template and that shape.
What is incorrect is to say that the shape can be applied universally to non half bodies of revolution, or that a car that doesn't follow the shape is somehow wrong.
|
Yes and no.
Double the ratio for blisters.
See post #7 by me in link below.
Scaling the Template
https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...ate-25975.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead View Post
If you inspect Hoerner's 'AERODYNAMIC DRAG',his treatment of canopies and blisters(pontoon fenders and separate greenhouse) actually goes in the other direction.
Instead of a 5:1 fineness ratio,he'll recommend 10:1.
It has to do with interference drag and super-velocities created by these individual elements when placed in proximity to one another.
This is a reason for keeping the aerodynamic 'singularity' of the 'Template' half-body rather than 'combination-forms.'
Since the half-body doesn't allow separation and produces minimum shear it's virtually unbeatable for a door-slammer.
|
More than one way to use or not use the template was my argument back in 2013. I used many specific examples but did not preface it on tuft attachment although perhaps I should have in retrospect.
Case example was NASA/Dryden truck tail treatment.
Would be interesting to examine if aggressive tail-cone angles of NASA/Dryden truck would have been better off following the template or not.
The Greyhound bus elongation images recently re-posted in one of the bus treads may serve as an example of template-style tail treatments, not sure - will review at a later time.